Measurement of clinical reflective capacity early in training as a predictor of clinical reasoning performance at the end of residency: an experimental study on the script concordance test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The script concordance (SC) test was conceived to measure knowledge organization, the presence of links between items of knowledge which allow for interpretation of data in clinical decision making situations. Earlier studies have shown that the SC test has good psychometric qualities and overcomes some of the limitations of simulation clinical testing. This study explores the predictive validity of the test. OBJECTIVES: To verify whether scores obtained by students at the end of clerkship predict their clinical reasoning performance at the end of residency. DESIGN: Comparison of scores obtained on a SC test taken at the end of clerkship with those obtained 2 years later at the end of residency on two clinical reasoning assessments of known validity, called the short-answer management problems (SAMPs) and the simulated office orals (SOOs), and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) aimed at assessing hands-on skills and clinical reasoning. Data were treated by Pearson correlation analysis. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: A cohort of 24 students from a medical school in Quebec was followed up to the end of their residency in family medicine, completed in several schools across Quebec. RESULTS: The observed Pearson correlation coefficients of the SC test were statistically significant (0.451, P=0.013; 0.447; P=0.015) when compared with the SAMPs and the SOOs, respectively. They were not statistically significant (0.340, P=0.052) when compared with the OSCE. CONCLUSION: The authors assumed that the richness of knowledge organization, as indicated by SC test scores, would predict part of the performance on the measures of clinical reasoning (SAMP and SOO), but would predict less well performance on the OSCE which measures both clinical skills and clinical reasoning. Data found in the study are coherent with this hypothesis. This is evidence in favour of the construct validity of the SC test. It also indicates that, in the context of certification assessment, if a candidate has shown good organization of clinical knowledge at an early point in training, it can be expected that he/she will show good organization at subsequent measurements of this kind of knowledge. This appears to be true even if the later measures bear on a wider clinical domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".